Issue 14186: The spec may require some clarification regarding figure 14.16 (uml2-rtf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. James Bruck, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: 
Summary: The spec may require some clarification regarding figure 14.16 . 

I believe that  "PIN" is just an attribute of the interaction "UserAccepted" but it may be unclear from the picture alone. 

In addition, how can the local attribute PIN be passed as a parameter to the operation Code()?   On the message "Code" would we specify an attribute of type Opaque Expression and use PIN ?  This seems to break the formal link between PIN the attribute and PIN the argument. 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 11, 2009: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ubject: Issue with UML 2.2
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006
From: James Bruck <jbruck@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:49:59 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at
 08/11/2009 14:50:01,
        Serialize complete at 08/11/2009 14:50:01


Name: James Bruck 
Company: IBM 
mailFrom: jbruck@ca.ibm.com 
Notification: Yes 
Specification: UML 
Section: 14.3.13 
FormalNumber: formal/09-02-02 
Version: 2.2 
RevisionDate: 02/02/09 
Page: 485 
Nature: Clarification 
Severity: 
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060200 SUSE/3.0.11-0.1.1 Firefox/3.0.11 

Description 


The spec may require some clarification regarding figure 14.16 . 

I believe that  "PIN" is just an attribute of the interaction "UserAccepted" but it may be unclear from the picture alone. 

In addition, how can the local attribute PIN be passed as a parameter to the operation Code()?   On the message "Code" would we specify an attribute of type Opaque Expression and use PIN ?  This seems to break the formal link between PIN the attribute and PIN the argument. 

Regards, 
- James.